First phase of testing is functional testing only and will be run on our current server as end users are participating. Once the functional testing phase has been completed with all accepted change requests incorporated (approximately 2 to 4 weeks), performance testing will commence in parallel on the existing server system and Safe Network. Once performance testing has completed satisfactorily, penetration testing will commence on the Safe Network before final release of a Safe Network hosted n99.
So in essence you’re building iTunes 2.0 with DRM included. Okay n99 just earned my disfavor. We don’t need more corporate mentality and information gate keeping. I’m not going to pay to stream content. If I can’t download it and keep the file then it’s not worth paying for. This is exactly why I don’t bother with Spotify.
Pay to stream. Yep I had a feeling n99 was going to become a corporate sell out project.
Neither would I, but are you sure it does or is it just download? It doesn’t seem clear that streaming is paid for:
Could I ask why this just alerts about “copyrighted” material. This would seem to protect all the big corp type players, but do nothing for small original content producers Can you please explain the mechanism to address this aspect. Cheers
Surely small original content producers would be hurt by people re-posting their content and taking credit for it as well as big corporate types?
Pay to stream wasn’t mentioned in the comments you replied to, but even if it was, that wouldn’t make it a corporate sellout - just a revenue option for artists that you don’t like & won’t use.
I think the idea of paying to stream is useful; you can know you’re supporting the artist directly, but may not yet want to commit to purchasing their full album. Maybe the streams you’ve paid for can also count as credit toward buying the album if you want it. However, I don’t know if N99 will offer the option of Pay to stream, but I would be quite happy if it did in addition to pay for download.
Maybe it’s my ignorance of copyright law, because that’s exactly what I’m getting at. Is it the case that any piece of original work is automatically copyrighted, or something that works like a patent and is applied for? Copyright/patent laws are different in different jurisdictions too, so how does it work here?
Essentially, the (maybe misguided) basis I was working on was that small producers are less likely to “copyright” anything, but if its just something that’s an automatic “right” in law the basis was wrong. It would just leave the jurisdiction thing.
What mechanism prevents me from downloading say an album, then re- uploading multiple copies or multiple times for profit.
I get that there is a mechanism to alert community, but how effective is that going to be in reality? Would it not just be a continual arms race, with no real consequences for perpetrator and no real defence for the original small content provider. The big copyrighted films etc can afford to take violators to court - the small guy can’t, so is at a disadvantage to the big boys.
Yes, copyright is an automatic right with no cost associated, though small steps can be taken to help with enforceability in the future. On N99 I guess the challenge will be proving to the community that the work is originally yours & not someone elses, but it’ll be as or more important for the small players as the big ones (if a big player steals a small player’s work, how will they be called out, given their bigger following?).
I don’t know how it’ll work, but there needs to be some mechanism to make it more difficult for people to rip off artists for their own gain. The methods implemented on day 1 may not be perfect but I’m sure they will be improved upon in time.
Paying to stream: N99 has absolutely no intention of being a corporate sellout! payments to stream are micro-payments, 99% of which goes directly to the content provider. It is a means of verifying genuine user interaction with content to ensure the integrity of charts and analytical data provided to content providers and users alike (2,000 views of of video are genuine views by real people) If you are not happy giving a micro payment to a band to listen to their track, or a podcaster to watch their podcast or a writer to read their blog that is entirely your choice, n99 is perhaps not the network for you. There are however a great many people who are happy to pay if they know the money is going directly to the artists.
no more middle men
99% direct to artists
words i wrote back in 94
Sticks and stones will brake my bones but words will never hurt me - have never been will never be a sell out
That sounds great when you frame it in the context of individual artists but it could also be used by big corporations like Disney or Paramount to force people to pay every time they want to watch their favorite cartoon or episode of Startrek, or whatever. n99 could easily become the new model for TV. Let me remind you there is no way to verify how “big” any given “content provider” is. It’s just a username on SAFE just like anything else. So while yes n99 could be used by individual artists it could also be used by big conglomerates as well. And no I’m not comfortable paying to stream from anyone individual or corporate alike. If I wanted to do that I’d watch television or go on netflix or something. If I download something I want to own it. I want to be able to load it on my phone, mp3 player, put it on an external hard drive, make amvs out of it, whatever. That’s why magnatune is a far more appealing company to me than itunes (not to mention they have far better curated music). Because if you download from magnatune you can do whatever you like with your files. In fact they ENCOURAGE you to share the music downloaded from there so long as you mention where you got it because that’s free advertising for them. Pirating is free advertising. I DESPISE copyright and the attempt by many artists and corporations to attempt to create artificial scarcity using art. Art and information is now a service not a product. If you want to market art then market it as a service and don’t attempt to play an information gate keeper and turn art into a product in the information age. It doesn’t matter if you’re an individual or a corporation: If you try to prevent someone from using the file as they may using DRM and go around suing people over copyright you’re still doing the same thing. You’re still attempting to create information artificial scarcity.
I see what happened there
So, who got the 1% if not the middle man?
Just read white paper which doesn’t really explain the “seeds” use - is there an updated version?
Here’s a couple of other things that may no longer be correct?
"This white paper will assume that JS developers understand the basic idea of how the SAFE Network pays SafeCoin to affiliated apps and deposits the same in their wallets"
" Users freely use n99 and either listen to, view or download content from the app’s channels."
"users can either freely listen to content via N99 or download content to their machines at their discretion at no cost."
Precisely. look I’d be willing to pay ONCE to be able to have permanent access to a piece of content, to stream, download and share it however I like. But I’m not going to pay just to stream it or play this stupid patent game. Not only that but patents go entirely against the concept of a free internet. The only way to play a music file is to decrypt it. The reason DRM works is you can break the DRM using modern computers. You can make it ILLEGAL but it’s not IMPOSSIBLE to do. But even if it was that would reduce the value of what you were paying for. I’m not paying just to listen to a track online under the conditions some elitist wants to specify. If I can’t do what I want with the data it’s not a purchase it’s renting or a lease. I don’t want to rent streams when I can just download music and load music on an mp3 player.
I agree, if you focus on the artist more than the customer then you will simply have no customers - except a handful of artists who support it.
Fwiw, I want to see artists better rewarded, but I doubt I would use any service that didn’t give me complete ownership of the data I was buying. I can only speak for myself ofc, but I can download whatever I want now for free so I’d need some kind of reason to switch to anything new. Less control and ownership at a higher cost would not motivate or interest me despite my preference for a fairer and more direct reward system for artists.
So with N99 you’ll be able to do that - pay to download it & do what you want with the files.
For those who would like to pay to stream, the option can be there too.
You might not like paying to stream, but the market clearly exists for it and people like it, so why not offer music etc in various buying formats that suit different people?
Artists that don’t believe in intellectual property rights don’t need a platform - they can just offer their songs for free to download on a website, but there’s a good reason few artists do this; because it’s hard to make a living giving expensive stuff away for free. If that worked, everyone would be doing it.
I think it’s pretty clear from the market what customers want - they want the music they like, on demand in an easy to access format.
Paid streaming platforms provide this & have been growing rapidly, but currently their business model sucks for the artists, so a platform that fixes this element can be great for both consumers and artists.
Of course the option to pay for full downloads of files you can do what you want with (for your own use) can be there for those who prefer that option too.
I think a tipping model would be better. Remember that p2p sharing originates from the inability to provide content without restrictions for a fair price. It would be hardly any work to rip the stream and make it available for download freely on an anonymous safenet site.
Obvious hole in your logic here. On a decentralized encrypted internet what’s to stop someone from buying music once, downloading it, then reuploading it somewhere else for everyone else to listen to? And again how is creating a pay to play model any less subject to piracy than the corporations? See I don’t fundamentally see a difference between n99 and some big corporate label be it a record label or a publishing house. You’ve got all the same functions: You’re trying to turn art into a product, artificial scarcity, pay to play streaming and downloading. How is n99 all that different? So what if the money goes direct to the artist? If the artist does just what the corporation does how is the artist different than the corporation? That’s why I call n99 a sell out because it’s doing EXACTLY what the big record labels are doing regardless of whether it’s paying the artists 99% or not.
See the objection isn’t that artists aren’t getting their cut. The objection is with the mechanics of the system. You’re still acting like you’re selling newspapers or books or performing live on a street corner somewhere for coins. But what the industry hasn’t caught onto yet is that you’re not producing a finite product but rather an infinite service. YOU the artist are the product and what you’re selling is the service you provide. A contracting and commissioning service would make more sense than trying to sell per download or pay to stream. Make streaming free, maybe pay to download or not, but gain an audience and then charge for personalized commissions or performances. Who cares if a commision gets pirated, it was a one time service and you got paid for it. Or set up a tipping system like on second life. Or something. But paying to download just seems futile And paying to stream is a waste of people’s time. Yes I know how popular Spotify is, I also know how stupid people can be. But you know if people like streaming and are willing to waste money on it then sure they should have that option. You should have the option to buy or sell whatever you want.
Maybe I’m just old but I like to have control of my data, especially if I pay for it.
Yes this is huge
@we_advance I wouldn’t recommend using money on things like copyright enforcement, it’s a losing battle and money pit.
Promoting artists, getting their content out there and then adding a SafeCoin Wallet for their fans to support them is the winning, sustainable, long term model to pursue here.
If anything, spend money on creating systems to verify real artists who truly created the song. But not copyright.
Need to have the clarity to see the future economic models that will flourish on a platform like the SAFE Network, instead of trying to enforce yesterday’s economic models onto a futuristic network.